People v. Milkovits CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Milkovits CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D080994
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD283646)
RYAN ANDREW MILKOVITS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Desiree Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jill M. Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
Christopher Beesley and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ryan Andrew Milkovits appeals, contending that any unpaid portion of
the criminal justice administration fee and restitution fine collection fee
imposed at sentencing should be vacated. As the People concede, we agree
these fees must be vacated, order the judgment modified, and otherwise
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Milkovits pled guilty in December 2019 to one count of unlawfully
selling or furnishing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352,
subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code
§ 11350). At sentencing, the trial court placed Milkovits on three years of
formal probation and imposed various fines and fees, including a $154
criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1
and a 10 percent restitution fine collection fee under former Penal Code
section 1202.4, subdivision (l).
After Milkovits’s probation was revoked on July 1, 2021, the court
imposed one-year custody and two-years supervision. At a July 28, 2022
contested revocation hearing, the court found Milkovits in violation of the
terms of his mandatory supervision, imposed the remaining unserved term of
255 days, and lifted the stay on the previously imposed fines and fees.
Milkovits appealed.1
DISCUSSION
Milkovits contends, and the People concede, that any portion of
Milkovits’s criminal justice administration fee unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and
any remaining restitution collection fee must be vacated. We agree.
1 As required by Penal Code section 1237.2, Milkovits moved the trial
court to delete the balance due on the criminal justice administration and
restitution collection fees. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.2 [appeal based on
erroneous fees may not be taken until defendant makes a motion in writing
for correction in the trial court].) Because the court found it lacked
jurisdiction to delete the fees, it denied the motion.
2
As of July 1, 2021, the statutory provision pursuant to which the court
previously ordered Milkovits to pay the criminal justice administration fee
was repealed (see former Gov. Code, § 29550.1), and Government Code
section 6111 became effective. That statute provides “the unpaid balance of
any court-imposed costs pursuant to . . . Section[] 29550.1 . . . as th[at]
section[] read[s] on June 30, 2021, is unenforceable and uncollectible and any
portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Gov. Code,
§ 6111, subd. (a).) Similarly, the restitution collection fee the court originally
issued pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 is no longer authorized. Penal
Code section 1465.9, subdivision (b) struck the fee, rendering the balance “on
and after January 1, 2022” of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section
1202.4 “unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment
imposing those costs shall be vacated.”
The plain language of these recently enacted statutes dictates that any
remaining unpaid balance of the criminal justice administration fee and
restitution collection fee is now unenforceable, uncollectible, and the portion
of the judgment imposing such costs must be vacated. (Gov. Code, § 6111,
subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1465.9, subd. (b); People v. Greeley (2021) 70
Cal.App.5th 609, 625–627 [vacating unpaid balance of criminal justice
administration fee].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to vacate the portion of the judgment
imposing any balance of the $154 criminal justice administration fee that was
unpaid before July 1, 2021, and any balance of the 10 percent restitution
3
collection fee that was unpaid before January 1, 2022, and to amend the
judgment accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
CASTILLO, J.
4